ABSTRACT
Vociferous public criticism of private madhouses in the late-Regency period was not a new phenomenon. Allegations of wrongful confinement, physical neglect and cruelty had accompanied the growth of the madhouse business. In the absence of new legislation, the 1815–16 select committee reports had few direct implications for institutions like Ticehurst. Indeed, in so far as the inquiries found little evidence of improper detention, and praised the treatment of private patients in some licensed houses, they helped to shift the focus of concern onto the absence of appropriate provision for pauper lunatics. However, in criticizing existing treatment of pauper patients, lunacy reformers reasserted the asylum's potential to cure, as well as care for, the insane. Claims like this helped to promote the case for spending public money on new county asylums, but could equally provide grounds for removing a patient who failed to recover from a private madhouse. In addition, prominent witnesses like the Quaker Edward Wakefield questioned the value of medical treatment in cases of insanity, and the vested interests of medical men in public and private asylums. 1 Given this, it is pertinent to consider how medical proprietors of respected licensed houses responded to the issues raised by the inquiries; and how they sought to justify continuing asylum care in the absence of recovery.
